Building on flood plains

[Sterlo]

Trouble is, if river & sea levels are rising at the rates they say, even something that isn't a flood plain now, may well be in 30 or 40 years time. Hull is notoriously low lying for the most part, they reckon it could disappear by 2050 (that might not be a bad thing!). We're looking to move to North Yorkshire in the near future and it's one thing I'm conscious of, many areas we're looking at are low flood risk at the moment but who's to say they will be in the years to come. Wonder if I can get planning permission to build on Snowdon?

 

[Sterlo]

Plans are afoot for a Maccy D, Starbucks & solar panels quite local to me in Hamtun...

View attachment 758926
This was the site last month.. Guess what.. It's a Flood Plain.

~ Local rag linkie ~

Then again, it could wipe out a few of the Maccy D litter louts.

 

[Oldhippy]

Monumentally stupid to do in the long term. Nature generally has a way of reclaiming in it periodically at some point.

 

[Drago]

It's bad enough that builders build on flood plains, but even more crazy that people blindly buy them.

Before I bought the new Drago towers I checked the Environment Ageny flood risk map (very low), and had a careful nosey of an OS map to estimate height above the nearest water course (55M), but it's staggering how few seem to bother but have the gall to whinge when it comes back to bite them.

 

[Ming the Merciless]

it's staggering how few seem to bother but have the gall to whinge when it comes back to bite them.

I think the details just wash over them

 

[Time Waster]

The thing is there's so many sources of info that when you look into it you get inundated so it's easier to swim with the shoal and buy into these big developments.

It should be have been the developers and planners to actually prevent flood plain developments or at least build them to cope with the risks.

BTW our building was built 1972 on the edge of a flood plain with flood prevention in the form of railway line and bog dykes, gates they can close and iirc some kind of pump too. That is all over the road from our house which is slightly higher with the house above a garage and undercroft. Basically a bungalow built at first floor level. Add in the fact that according to even the most pessimistic forecast the max height of flooding would reach our side of the road in 2080. I'll be over 100 yo by then if I even make it.

I know this because there was a climate research organisation that produced an online map where you could choose the various research on flood risk and climate change predictions to heighten or lessen the potential risk. So you could choose the most pessimistic model with the highest temp range prediction and superimpose the predicted outcomes onto a UK map that is fully zoomable and searchable got individual locations. That's how I know that I have a very low risk of flooding in my house. I might need a boat to get home but at least the house will be dry!

 

[ebikeerwidnes]

There should be a regulation for the builders to do some proper research and supply it to the people buying the new houses
Also - same thing for surveyors doing the survey when people buy a house

There is also a problem with people wanting everything served up to them
I do rather get fed up with people appearing on telly - or Social Media - saying "But nobody told us"

well - did you ask - did you check it out - did you think - did you employ a professional to check it out???

and the answer is probably no - but they did get the most basic survey done and it is clear that the surveyor would have made the more detailed option clear
but as they cost more they went for the cheapest and then moan afterwards that no-one told them about the things they opted not to check out

 

[Ming the Merciless]

it's easier to swim with the shoal

Or wave the details away

 

[Time Waster]

Or wave the details away

I sea what you did there. 😀

 

[Jameshow]

I sea what you did there. 😀

You guys are dredging the puns tbh....

 

[Drago]

Strewth, there'll be a flood of puns now, an inundation of them, and the tone of the thread will sink.

 

[ebikeerwidnes]

Strewth, there'll be a flood of puns now, an inundation of them, and the tone of the thread will sink.

I would be worried about being to far off topic and getting into hot water

best not to get bogged down otherwise the tone will sink

 

[Psamathe]

There should be a regulation for the builders to do some proper research and supply it to the people buying the new houses
Also - same thing for surveyors doing the survey when people buy a house

There is also a problem with people wanting everything served up to them
I do rather get fed up with people appearing on telly - or Social Media - saying "But nobody told us"

well - did you ask - did you check it out - did you think - did you employ a professional to check it out???

and the answer is probably no - but they did get the most basic survey done and it is clear that the surveyor would have made the more detailed option clear
but as they cost more they went for the cheapest and then moan afterwards that no-one told them about the things they opted not to check out

I agree and find things frustrating. 16 years ago house hunting I found I could have got a lot more house for a lot less money if I'd accept flood risk (or in Norfolk being too close to eroding coast in 25 years time). I made a choice that I didn't want flood risk (or approaching coastline) and before even going to view a house I'd check out the EA flood risk maps online and not bother going if flood risk.

But I don't understand how people spending such vast sums, committing for years ahead just abandon common sense and allow their desire for more house for less money to make the decision.

The way I regard insurance in western society is it's spreading the risk (plus corporate profits). So if you opt for higher risk then expect to be contributing more. Lot more risk expect to be contributing a lot more. I'd find it difficult to justify expecting those who opted for less house for more money to be subsidising my choice for more house for less money through flood risk. Just like car insurance where a 1L family hatch back doing 0-60 in 2 days is a lot cheaper to insure than a Porsche or, a middle age driver with no endorsements/accidents pays a lot lower premium that a youngster with 11 points having just got their licence back from a ban.

I can appreciate that flood risk areas a growing as our climate changes and as EA reassess and I do feel sorry for those who purchased clear of flood risk and then EA "moved" them into flood risk.

But then we also get to Leasehold Contracts where I also can't understand how with such a major purchase people didn't read the contract and/or take advice on the contract and think into the future.

Ian

 

[ebikeerwidnes]

I agree and find things frustrating. 16 years ago house hunting I found I could have got a lot more house for a lot less money if I'd accept flood risk (or in Norfolk being too close to eroding coast in 25 years time). I made a choice that I didn't want flood risk (or approaching coastline) and before even going to view a house I'd check out the EA flood risk maps online and not bother going if flood risk.

But I don't understand how people spending such vast sums, committing for years ahead just abandon common sense and allow their desire for more house for less money to make the decision.

The way I regard insurance in western society is it's spreading the risk (plus corporate profits). So if you opt for higher risk then expect to be contributing more. Lot more risk expect to be contributing a lot more. I'd find it difficult to justify expecting those who opted for less house for more money to be subsidising my choice for more house for less money through flood risk. Just like car insurance where a 1L family hatch back doing 0-60 in 2 days is a lot cheaper to insure than a Porsche or, a middle age driver with no endorsements/accidents pays a lot lower premium that a youngster with 11 points having just got their licence back from a ban.

I can appreciate that flood risk areas a growing as our climate changes and as EA reassess and I do feel sorry for those who purchased clear of flood risk and then EA "moved" them into flood risk.

But then we also get to Leasehold Contracts where I also can't understand how with such a major purchase people didn't read the contract and/or take advice on the contract and think into the future.

Ian

I agree - I have seen houses in Moreton built on land that ALWAYS flooded when I was growing up

A friend of my Dad's bought a new house there - we warned him so he checked and foudn that his plot was on a slightly higher part and so the rest of the site would flood first
and he was in his 80s so wouldn;t be bothered after a few years anyway

but the rest of the building site went ahead

We also pointed out to him the damn great concrete wall just to the north of his house that held the tide back twice a day
and how it only just managed it at spring tides in a storm


I woulnd;t buy there

 

[Kingfisher101]

Lots of the council planning department here have been suspended for an inquiry into corruption.
No kidding really?
Loads of them years ago went to prison in Doncaster for allowing houses to be built on land that wasnt fit for building. It was full of disused mines and the houses fell down because of subsidence.
If people get offered a massive amount to lie and be corrupt the majority of people will take the money. It is what it is.
The only thing is if you accept then you will always be in their pocket.
Do you remember when that Fish lake flooded? there was a clue here I think in the name.